To enforce required validation or something less?

So, you expect us to download a new guy's page. Run it through the validator. Fix all 592 errors. Validate again. Examine the page. Then report whether or not the problem was with incorrect markup or not.

I think you need to read this article:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you

Willingness to validate shows a help yourself attitude. Also read this:
http://www.csscreator.com/css-forum/ftopic9114.html

Whether you or anyone else realizes it or not, we are not here to cater to the whim of every person that decides to join. We are willing to help but we will not do your work for you. We are, for the most part, professionals that should not be expected to take food out of our families mouths just because someone needs their web page written for them, at least not without some compensation (as in money).

I haven't read the links yet but I can see your points. 592 pages would be a hell of a job to tackle for a freebie favour.

I'd agree with this too. I guess the question is if it is enforced and how so. Ignore every post not validated? Encourage the ones not validated or only force the heavy hitters (the 592 errors, not the 4 errors) to validate?

There is clearly a balancing point between the two camps of thought?

Yup I do. I'm sure others do too. No one asked for money until that happens no one has the right to expect anything from the forum.

I have to partially agree here. This is a voluntary contribution of time. If you can spend the time better elsewhere (putting food in your families mouths perhaps) then do so. I do.

The difficult to understand posts and too complex posts sometimes don't get answered for those reasons. The time required to understand them is more than the reader wants to commit for free.

I think there are extremes in both camps of thought. I think neither extreme is right. The solution has to be a balance. Is that balance evident in the forums at the moment? Who knows. I guess it is only by swinging one way then the other and observing the results of membership signups and activity you'll work out what is best for the audience this forum attracts.

I would prefer not to force validation on new posters. I would like to ensure the tools to validate are a click away for posters and readers. I am fully behind encouraging validation and perhaps demanding it when the validations errors are too numerous, or obviously to blame.

I personally think we are too far into the validate first camp OR too harsh in how it is presented to newbies here.

I don't spend a lot have time here having hung around more at another forum. So I have no "weight" so to speak. I offer these thoughts and opinions simply as that.

I don't feel this is a big point either way and don't want to run it into an issue. I just thought the input may help/be of interest.

Why not make validation tools more readily available, integrated even into the pages even? Surely that would be better for both newbies and regulars of both camps.

Carrot not stick.

The problem is, if we help them, the fix won't work in a lot of cases BECAUSE of th invalid markup.

Nice thoughts though, you may want to start a new topic in "Site Discussion" so we can decide on the best course of action.

Yes. Do that.

I agree that balance is the key but you must balance ALL the factors (including attitude).

Fair enough. For now at least I have to put food in my families mouth so will try to revisit it later (tomorrow perhaps) and compose some thoughts.

Anyone else here is very welcome to start the thread up in my place. Perhaps a poll for newbies to comment on how they want to be treated (whilst pointing out they can't just have us code for them but we can help them learn).

Thanks again all for comments/help to date.

Very similar discussion was had a while back in this thread.

It really is very simple and not that debatable Matt, firstly we do not "force" validation on people. Secondly there is no course of action to followed.

How it works (or should)

A poster posts a problem with code and link, if that code fails on some minor validation points then it should be ignored as it is not pertinent to the problem I personally would just make a footnote mentioning the need to correct errors/warnings.

If someone posts a page with clear examples of errors that are of a severe nature then there is absolutely no point taking the post any further and the poster must be requested to validate and fix those errors so that they can be removed from the equation as probable cause.

Both of the above responses can be carried out without causing offence! although it is mildly offensive and discourteous of people to ignore the forum guidelines and help offered, but that happens.

The last thing that should happen is that we allow beginners to believe it is fine to post up broken code, that will open the flood gates and every other post will be a request to fix up errors, validate ; how could that be any other way? would you have us correct peoples broken code for them?

Why do you want people to post without any preperation then, do you feel that is a good idea? are we to be damned for perhaps wanting the quality of posts to be of a "standard"? There is no cut off point. What were asking is that people have some clue as to what their doing, there are plenty of beginners tuts for HTML/CSS out on the web it's how I learn't most of my stuff; ok so maybe we are requiring that a certain level is reached, is that so wrong ?.

A point to remember is that this is a forum for matters dealing with CSS not specifically HTML if you present a problem to do with CSS and your HTML is badly written why should we be having to veer off the subject and explain to people how to fix up there HTML ( although we do do this with pleasure as a matter of course as the two are often tied together) but the point being that we should expect that at least the poster has some clue as to how to write well formed error free markup.

Requesting that someone validates their code is also a matter of judgement, one must judge first the level of importance to attach - in this instance- to the requirement of a validated page; an un-escaped ampersand is not actually going to cause rendering problems and chiefly should be ignored.

Due to the level of judgement required I would far prefer it if requests for validation came primarily from senior/long standing members who can apply that level of judgement, as there has been a propensity for people to jump on the bandwagon of validation, believing it to "cool" to be seen to be saying it.

So frankly yes we do require people present their work error free and I'm afraid that we will still, from time to time, be forced to utter those word "please validate". If the poster hasn't a clue that's fine we can explain further what they need to do; as we often have.

This is one of the most relaxed and friendly forums I've come across that offers this level of knowledge, people should really respect that fact and do their utmost to help ensure that it remains that way, and it will not remain that way if one allows standards to slip and for people to believe that they can just post up bad code with impunity. In some ways it about setting a standard to which they must rise to on that path to better understanding, not for us to have to descend to. Above all else this can all be done with good grace and humour when needed, but we have to be careful that we don't get jaded and start to loose patience with posts and that happens from enforcing a few pre-requisites from time to time.

Hugo.

N.B If your going to quote me then please do so in full, thankyou.

I agree with Hugo (although I didn't read all of his post ).

When I look at a post, my first thought isn't, "is this valid", its "can I see where the problem lies". Invalid code, messy code, large complex pages all get in the way of that. Really, the best help we can give someone who has got to that stage is:

- validate
- tidy
- isolate the problem

Those are all the things that someone who does try to provide a proper answer will have to do. Since they really aren't related to the problem at hand, it really is up to the poster to do them. And to repeat what I said above, in the long term encouraging them to do that is the BEST help we can give.

Hi All

Hugo, that "How it works" guide represents the balance and flexibility I was under the impression existed here. I can't disagree with it. I hope it is in practice. Maybe if I spend more time here I'll see for myself.

My original comments were reacting to the impression that validation was in the pipelines to be forced on posters, or that there was a general feeling of moving to that. I recognise I was only reacting to an opinion of one well respected poster and he later agreed that forcing validation might not encourage newbies to post. Opinions have a way of promoting feedback as the original thread shows.

I don't have a problem with a "standards" cut off as described, I simply like it to be obvious and know when it is present. Perhaps to new visitors it is not obvious enough. I retain my opinion that it doesn't help growth but quality is also important and I fully accept you might play one off for the other.

I originally felt put out I had been bluntly asked to validate when validation did not impact the problem and the error was only a minor encoding mismatch. I quickly realised I had in fact copy and pasted code into textarea tags and had character encoding problems as well. Which gave 13 errors rather than one. I also quickly realised I should have validated a second time before posting, I knew how, was used to doing it and had no excuse. But I did feel that such a response to someone that didn't know how (read newbie) might easily have seen them walking away and that growth was a goal of the forum. Hence my comments. I do think the response to my initial post was fair and required have no beef with anything said. I did at that point perceive a “force a validate first” camp.

One suggestion I would like to come out of this is:
Why not make validation tools more readily available, integrated even into the pages even? Surely that would be better for both newbies and regulars.

Had such tools been a click away and notes in the posting process reminded me of the general practice I might have used them. As a whole most users are lazy and take the easiest/quickest route to the perceived goal/solution. Since this is human nature perhaps we should put validation at least on the roadside of the path to that solution. As a call to action in the post area perhaps.

Hello campers. Hi-de-hi.

Perhaps you could cast your eyes over this one:

http://www.csscreator.com/css-forum/sutra72054.html#72054

I seem to have upset them. Maybe my use of English was poor. A lack of diplomacy?

Bear in mind his previous posts:

http://www.csscreator.com/css-forum/ftopic13709.html

and

http://www.csscreator.com/css-forum/ftopic13743.html

Trevor

Oh dear, I might call that a slight case of over reaction, actually I call that an extreme and un-warranted case of over reaction and more irritatingly accusing you of things that you definitely did not infer but that the poster chose to imply, ho hum.

Hugo.

Hi

I felt like someone asking the wrong person for the time and getting my head kicked in. Did I do something wrong? what tripped his switch?

Ho hum.

Trevor

Hi ClevaTreva

Humm another cry for integrating validation tools? People hate being told to do anything.

Most are easier to prompt than tell outright. Upfront demand to validate (however justified) is bound to get more backs up than numerous gentle prompts within the submission process. If they have a beef with the precess they won't post or at least won't take it out on those that respond to their post. If they fail to follow the obvious/many requests to validate and it is easy to do so then asking them to validate first (in caps or otherwise) is far more justified and less likely to mis-interpretation.

Perhaps a simple auto insertion, after regexp found links, as:
(validates?)

So someone types in a link and gets:
http://www.csscreator.com (validates?)

Or/and a validate before posting button along with the URL one. A "Why validate?" page/link in the posting area too explaining they really should validate if they expect help.

I'm sure more advanced/better solutions could be dreamed up too. You might need to regexp to different validation urls for css and html/xhtml etc. These are just starting thoughts.

Matt, I think that the impression that were moving towards forcing validation on posters is slightly unfounded, we - as far as I can remember - have always made a point of expecting people to present work in some semblance of order as is in keeping with many forums of this nature, however we have also always been tolerant of the fact that many are new to such things and need guidance in these matters.

We are also fairly tolerant of the fact that many do not follow the basic forum precepts that before posting one lurk around, get a flavour of how the forum runs and to read the guidelines and any stickies that may be designed to help ( I guess that this was the meaning behind my slightly blunt phrase "jumping in blindly" but which is what many do) these are generic forum precepts and not particular to this forum.

While it may be true that requesting that someone checks their work for errors might put people off; it in itself is not an unreasonable request and I would expect one of two reactions to the request either that they do indeed go off and validate and return or they express a lack of understanding and request further guidance and I have never seen anyone decline such a request for further help. If someone flounces off in a huff then sorry but that is their problem and they need to deal with that if they want to get ahead.

As regards making the cut off point more obvious it's hard to know what to do. The posting guidelines were re-written to some extent but other than that there is little one can do and brings us back to the onus being on the newbie to read these things. What we definitely don't want to do is to labour these points as then we become that kind of heavy handed elitist forum that most of us that chose to hang out here, did so because it didn't have that attitude.

The issue of quality is more important than one may give due credit to. I have seen a number of forums fade away due to the quality of post declining to the point where the long standing members drifted away to pastures anew. It happens, and is something that does need to be guarded against , this is the difficulty though in balancing forum good nature and friendliness with a certain amount standards upkeep, but this is where a good set of moderators plays it's part.

We will always at times be guilty of jumping on someone unfairly over something such as validating, thankfully we do seem to get the balance pretty much right, but we are only human ( well some of us) and fall pray to occasionally loosing patience with the fourth post in a row that needs to be asked to fix up errors.

Growth should always be the goal of a community which is what forums are without growth stagnation sets in and that is also a slow death of things, but that growth must not be at the expense of standards and quality as that too can be the slow demise of things.

You were probably understandably in this instance, regarding your post, given to feel that perhaps you had been victim of the validate or be damned attitude (although I know the poster did not intend it in that way) but the fact was you chose to understand that request and work with it not go off in a huff and even to try and debate the issue in a sensible manner, people like yourself grow a forum and it matters not what level of competence they may have; absolute beginner or well versed they have the correct attitude and are not put off by a perception.

As for validating tools well they couldn't be easier if as we inform people often they were to develope using Firefox then those tools can be readily available.

Integrating something into the forum posting area would be an interesting idea and a challenge that I'm sure Tony would be up for and probably turn out in his sleep

Hugo.

Trevor it was nothing on the post that I got involved in where I asked that someone be careful with their tone when replying to people, having implied to my (correct) help that I clearly had not looked at his page nor understood the problem and clearly did not have the right answer
He then proceeded to slag me off in the most appalling manner posting new posts just to call me names and to top it all he then went back in and edited his original post and others to make it look as though he had known it was a certain problem all along and that I was a deceitful useless cretin that didn't know what I was talking about and posted at length on the subject Of my appalling and downright disgraceful attitude

Final straw was being called a "pompous insecure sissy" that hurt to the core and I still haven't got over that, shook my world completely

Was it this post?

Is this a box model problem or coding mistake?Well, you can't rule out a coding mistake until you fix your errors.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realworldweb.co.uk%2Fexamplecode%2Fchild_margins_damage_container_background%2F

If so, I don't see the bluntness. :shrug:

Should I have added a ?

Even when asking for help? :? Maybe you mean "Children hate being told to do anything."

So someone types in a link and gets:
http://www.csscreator.com (validates?)A clever idea. Simply implemented:
In bbcode.tpl change

<!-- BEGIN url --><a href="{URL}">{DESCRIPTION}</a><!-- END url -->

to
<!-- BEGIN url --><a href="{URL}">{DESCRIPTION}</a> (<a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri={URL}">validates?</a>) <!-- END url -->

and in bbcode.php change

	// matches an "xxxx://yyyy" URL at the start of a line, or after a space.
	// xxxx can only be alpha characters.
	// yyyy is anything up to the first space, newline, comma, double quote or <
	$ret = preg_replace("#(^|[\n ])([\w]+?://[^ \"\n\r\t<]*)#is", "\\1<a href=\"\\2\">\\2</a>", $ret);

	// matches a "www|ftp.xxxx.yyyy[/zzzz]" kinda lazy URL thing
	// Must contain at least 2 dots. xxxx contains either alphanum, or "-"
	// zzzz is optional.. will contain everything up to the first space, newline, 
	// comma, double quote or <.
	$ret = preg_replace("#(^|[\n ])((www|ftp)\.[^ \"\t\n\r<]*)#is", "\\1<a href=\"http://\\2\" >\\2</a>", $ret);

to

	// matches an "xxxx://yyyy" URL at the start of a line, or after a space.
	// xxxx can only be alpha characters.
	// yyyy is anything up to the first space, newline, comma, double quote or <
	$ret = preg_replace("#(^|[\n ])([\w]+?://[^ \"\n\r\t<]*)#is", "\\1<a href=\"\\2\">\\2</a> (<a href=\"http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=\\2\">validates?</a>)", $ret);

	// matches a "www|ftp.xxxx.yyyy[/zzzz]" kinda lazy URL thing
	// Must contain at least 2 dots. xxxx contains either alphanum, or "-"
	// zzzz is optional.. will contain everything up to the first space, newline, 
	// comma, double quote or <.
	$ret = preg_replace("#(^|[\n ])((www|ftp)\.[^ \"\t\n\r<]*)#is", "\\1<a href=\"http://\\2\" >\\2</a> (<a href=\"http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=\\2\">validates?</a>)", $ret);

I think I'll submit it to phpbb.

Very well put. Thank you.

I think most avenues of thought have been fully expressed. I'd be happy to help regarding developing a validate tools into the site GUI.

Side note: I was amused to spot validation errors on www.csscreator.com when I posted the example link (<ul><br /><li><li>] but they are now corrected. Fast turn around.

Yes, FireFox and some of the extensions make validation very easy to spot and fix. Not enough people use FireFox IMHO. Hence the tools integration that those "default install" FF users and of course the IE users would hopefully find useful.

There have always been a few validation warnings for this site but since Tony the forum owner/administrator de-tabled the code a lot fewer than a regular phpbb site I'm sure. Those that remain are likely deeply rooted in the core and a major pain to correct either that or Tony has not had time to deal with them. I don't think anything has been corrected recently.

Tony is the guy you need to chat to regarding adding a validate option to links.

Hugo.

Yep. Tony is da man!

Maybe he'll use my mod and I'll be king again.

You'll notice that guy also reckoned he had extensive IT background in another field. It seems like those sort of people are always the quickest to fly off the handle.

Funny isn't it; given the claimed background in mainframe/ backend / programming and the pressures that kind of work can bring to bear you would expect an entirely different type of personality, at least that's my experience they generally are rather calm balanced people not given to irrational outbursts.

I tend to roll eyes whenever I see someone claim that kind of skill now and tend to think to myself " well CSS is going to be a walk in the park for you"

Hugo

Hack submitted to phpbbhacks.com and to phpbb.com (not visible on phpbb.com yet).

http://www.phpbbhacks.com/download/5812

Personally, i don't agree on forcing validation, i also don't think that is what happens here.

It seems to me that all we want is for people to have put the effort in first ... something i was guilty of NOT doing in a couple of my first posts.

Being told that validating will clear up all the unrelated errors, therefore make it easier for me to try again to correct it myself, is helpful advice not arrogance or a disinclination to help.

As with most of you in here, i prefer helping people that have put the effort in themselves first.

I do second the idea of providing a validation tool link from the forum - it'll just make it easier for new posters to help themselves and then easier for us to help them.

IMHO

Freddy